Hottest reefs on Earth make a nice home for corals?

If Earth warms by 2 degrees The Great Barrier Reef is a goner, or maybe not. Tropical reefs are generally about 28C but even a one degree rise above normal temperatures can bleach corals.

This latest paper by Hume et al, showed that some corals survive in the hottest reefs on Earth which are in the Arabian/Persian Gulf and are a whopping 36 degrees C. In order to survive, corals do deals with symbiotic algae, but these are very sensitive to changes in temperature (or so we thought):

Reefs are made up of many species of coral, each of which have a mutually beneficial, or “symbiotic”, relationship with algae living in their tissue. These algae supply vital nutrition to the host but are sensitive to environmental changes including increases in seawater temperature.

Even a temperature rise of just one degree Celsius can harm the symbiotic algae, which in turn can increase mortality in corals. The associated loss of symbiotic algae is known as “coral bleaching” because the white skeletons of the corals become visible through the tissue depleted from the algal pigments.

Obviously those Gulf coral survive those wildly high temperatures with freak heat-loving-symbiotic-algae that can’t survive in normal oceans right? No. No. No. It was a plumb ordinary type, not even well known for living in warm areas. There goes that theory…

…the scientists were surprised to discover that the algae in Gulf corals belong to a group not known for its thermal tolerance.

“We see that the algae are indeed special but in a way that we did not expect,” said Dr Wiedenmann. “The algae that we found in most of the corals in Abu Dhabi reefs were previously described as a ‘generalist strain’ that is usually not found in corals exposed to high levels of heat stress.”

“The system seems to be more complex than it is commonly thought …”

A few things to learn still about coral reefs then?

I did wonder how they evolved during times of high CO2 and hotter conditions, but became endangered by a mere 0.9C rise. Somehow, incredibly, the Barrier Reef survived the Holocene. Of course, some would say we’re changing things faster than an ice age melt, but then, daily pH shifts on some reefs can be larger than the expected changes this century. (Hofmann et al).

There is the obligatory climate-caveat, but cause and effect is the wrong way around here (my bolding):

“Gulf corals are living at the limit of their tolerance,” said co-author Professor John Burt from the New York University Abu Dhabi. “We have observed an increased frequency of coral bleaching events in this area, and we need to act now to protect and understand these ecosystems that hold the answers to many important climate change related questions.

How do we protect something we don’t understand? First we study it. Then we pick a policy.

PS: Of course, this one paper about extremely hot conditions doesn’t suggest all corals would cope, or most reef-life would survive 36C temperatures, but it does tell us that what we don’t know is larger than what we do. We could spend billions trying to protect the reef only to find we did more harm than good. Think of the Nature-Climate-Change brainwave that we cover part of the Great Barrier Reef with shade cloth. It’s only 348,000 square kilometers, which part do we cover? Or we could spend 0.0001% of that on real scientists who use real observations instead of computer simulations.

Since when is there any evidence that human activity is responsible for any harm to the reef?

And when did I ever say I think loss of a species is a good thing?

The problem is that species have come and gone throughout the history of this planet and there’s not much you or I can do about it. We can do something about activities that now threaten some species and we ought to concentrate on what we can manage better, not waste our time on this global warming wild goose chase.

From what I can see from reading available material, we know very little about the Great Barrier Reef. But it doesn’t look like going away just yet. So let’s do good honest research, not based on the preconceived notion that humans are killing the corals and see where it leads.

As I said on a previous thread: we have as much right to be here as any other living thing. Our right includes the use of everything around us. It’s our job to use things wisely, not refuse to take advantage of them. It’s called conservation as opposed to environmentalism.

So what is it. We know very little about the reef (untrue), or there is no evidence that we have/can/are harming the reef (untrue)? You not knowing or bothering to look for or believing the evidence does not mean there is no evidence. You knowing little about the reef is not the same as there not being a substantial amount of knowledge about the reef.

It’s great that the Great Barrier Reef has only lost half its coral in the past couple of decades, isn’t it? There’s so much left, it’s not like we need it all. Ask anyone with two hands: you don’t need them both, do you? And this is the best-managed reef system in the world. Allegedly.

I’d be more interested in whether or not there is (or once was) life on Mars, never mind Io and Titan. After all, there’s evidence that there was once running water on Mars. And that almost surely indicates that Mars’ atmosphere was a lot denser in the past than it is now. Therefore the temperature was possibly higher with a smaller drop-off at night. So the place could have been more hospitable to some form of living organism.

I don’t believe we’ll be sending men to Mars any time soon. The technical difficulty of an expedition remaining totally self sufficient for the years it would take to get there, do any worthwhile exploration and then get back is simply overwhelming. But I’m really hoping that with the great success of unmanned exploration so far, we’ll keep trying to get a better grip on our only earthlike neighbor.

As a child of the Space Age Roy I have to say with dissapointment I dont think anyone within our conception of this civilisation(globally) will ever go to Mars. Everyone and his uncle will eventually go to the Moon. China being next. Nobody will domuch more than plat a flag there (India already has) and that’ll be that.

It costs too much, we have an increasingly risk averse culture that prevents others taking risks (astronauts) and there just aint the motive for it.

Maybe a couple of thousand years hence…oh, but even as a “peak” resources sceptic, I will admit two millenia down the road there wont be any resources to use to go further afield.

We’ve had the window of opportunity and it was squandered.

If NASA really wanted to they could have solved this Life On Mars issue in the forty years they’ve been landing probes there. Alas, almost the only trick NASA can do is send probes to Mars. All their other efforts tend towards shite. So they aint gonna use up that gravy train by fulfilling the objective too soon. Im not a conspiracy minded person, but I do think it odd that Beagle 2 dissapeared without trace.

My point of referring to Io and Titan, so immensely distant, is that nothing Human beings do on Earth is going to make a damn difference to the probable abundance of microbial life in the Solar system. I take it for granted it exists on Mars. There were even microbes found thriving on the Moon, albeit ones accidentally taken there aboard a robotic lander. So why give a shit about a few coral dwelling critters here or there?

And I thought I was a cynic!? But you are correct. NASA is off on a political mission and needs a good housecleaning, which of course, will probably not happen.

Unlike you I don’t assume there is life somewhere else in the solar system. But I would like to know if there is. Mars seems the most likely candidate because of the evidence of water. Life in the absence of water is a science fiction idea not born out by any evidence that I know of — though if you know of any I’m certainly interested.

Manned exploration of the duration required for a round trip to Mars is also something right out of science fiction. The probability of a fatal failure on such a mission is nearly 1.

Modern corals first appeared when temperatures and atmospheric CO2 content were higher than today. Increased temperatures won’t hurt them, you could say they were raised on higher temperatures and increased CO2.

I would remind them that 20kya they Great Barrier Reef was dead as a doornail and was on dry land. How hot was that? And yet after the sea levels rose at the end of the last glaciation the reef came back. During the previous interglacial, temperatures were warmer than the Holocene. How did corals ever survive that? This is just absolute nonsense designed to scare people into going along with parting with billions of dollars. I have no idea why anyone believes this nonsense unless they are completely uninformed about climate on Earth over geological time.

Take a look at a new free app called Earthviewer from the Howard Hughes Medical Centre – a very unlikely source of Earth’s CO2 and continental drift history, not to mention temperature as well.

Unfortunately, there is the obligatory BS about global warming today, but if you go through all the charts and maps you will wonder yet again what the alarmist fuss about today’s CO2 levels is all about.

Whenever a ‘scientist’ says we need to act now, my BS meter goes nuts. He is an advocate, a lobbyist, a political hack, not a scientist, when he makes such a statement. As for protecting and understanding, Jo is right – cart before horse. Besides, he’s only paving the way for more grants to fund more coral reef snorkeling expeditions on large well-appointed ocean-going yachts.

why has AAP, which isn’t attributed at Sky, but is at the second link, contacted Gore to interfere in our elections with disinformation?

5 Feb: Sky News: Gore says direct action plan won’t work
Australians should take a careful look at the progress made to slow climate change here and around the world before the federal election, former US vice-president Al Gore says.
The prominent environmental campaigner believes Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s carbon tax shows courage and vision but the coalition’s direct action plan to deal with climate change won’t work.
Speaking from Tennessee, Mr Gore said he would be watching how the 2013 federal election unfolded and what that meant for action on climate change.
‘I’m very impressed with your current prime minister,’ he told ABC TV on Monday, referring to Labor’s carbon tax.
‘She’s shown a great deal of courage and vision.’…
***He said with recent floods, fires and extreme weather, there was powerful evidence the climate crisis was having a harsh impact on Australia.
***’Mother Nature (is) now speaking very loudly and persuasively, in keeping with what the scientists predicted would unfold,’ he said…http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=842546

I lived in North West NSW for many years, we are talking serious sunshine. Six panels were an absolute minimum to run 12 volt lighting (I hope you don’t mind it dim), 12V water pump (from above ground tank), TV and stereo. Fire up the genny if you want to do anything serious like the laundry or aircon. Gas for cooking was essential.

Well maybe I am being a little facetious here, but then let’s look at it shall we.

This one X 225 Watt Solar Panel will generate on average perhaps 1.8KWH.

So then, let’s look at the average household power consumption, and considering the average consumption comes in at 20KWH, I’ll put in brackets after the percentage what the actual power would be.

Heating Cooling – 38% (7.6KWH)

Water heating – 25% (5KWH)

Fridges and Freezers – 7% (1.4KWH)

Lighting – 7% (1.4KWH)

Cooking – 4% (0.8KWH)

Standby Power – 3% (0.6KWH)

Other Appliances – 16% (3.2KWH)

So, with that one panel, you can run your fridge, but only during daylight hours, and have a few cups of tea or coffee, again only during daylight hours.

Also, see here how changing all your light bulbs for CFL’s doesn’t amount to much in the way of savings. The bulb most used is the Kitchen light which accounts for around 70% of all lighting, and that is already a fluoro. So you’re looking at changing all the rest, so that comes in at a saving of 70% of 30% of 7%, which comes in at a lowering of your residential power consumption by around 1.5%, which works out at around 7.5 cents a day, or perhaps $24 per year, and you tell me how much these bulbs cost per unit.

Yes but hang on Tony you are not looking at the big picture, if we covered 20SqK of ground with these panels think of the possibilities. When the sun dont shine we will get our power from the turbines and when the wind dont blow we can get our power from the waves so dont you go dissin green alternatives they are the future.

Now i know what your come back will be, the sun dont shine at night and what “if” the wind dont blow and what “if” the waves dont break where then do we get our power……well i have already thought of that and we will follow France’s lead in doing a good impression of Nth Korea and we will just turn everything off at night time.

If we have 1 225Watt panel and it is running at capacity which is actually virtually impossible but stay with me and i have a kettle that requires 1000 watts then i deduct 225 from 1000 and i get -675. I know there is bullshit in here somewhere but for the life of me i cannot see it can some one help me out please?

Well if it ain’t that stalker Mattb again! Its abundantly clear that you always accept the opinion of anybody who puts themselves forth as an “expert”. No wonder you are a warmist…..

Let me show you the insignificance of your ignorance. TonyfromOz’s opinion assumes 100% efficiency from solar. By the time those electrons have flowed down copper, into a storage battery, then back out again through copper, through an inverter and through copper again to your fridge… you would be lucky run that fridge for 20 minutes.

Backslider………..just had a thought Gillard could use your name as her campaign motto LOL.

Back on subject,

1, The cabling used is generally a low loss cable the panels in each array are wired up in series and the cable runs are quite short so the current loss is very low.
2, The home solar systems do not have batteries
3, The inverter is where you loose just about everything in two ways, the first is heat and the second is efficiency (quality of the product)
4, If a panel is rated at 225W you will not get 225W out of it except under perfect conditions that usually last only a few minutes, therefore if you have 16 panels at 200w = 3.2Kw you will never get 3.2Kw out of it and the biggest culprit is the panels in combination with the lack of efficiency of the inverter.

1, The cabling used is generally a low loss cable the panels in each array are wired up in series and the cable runs are quite short so the current loss is very low.

The cabling used is good old every day copper. The cable runs are generally long – panels are either on the roof or a panel tower (at least as high as the roof) and the losses are significant. Why do you guys make stuff up?

2, The home solar systems do not have batteries

So where do you propose to store this electricity? Of course there are batteries.

Maybe you are not from around these parts but here in Oz if you get a solar system through Gov grants system (99.999%) of all systems, these systems require mains power, thats 240V @ 50Hz they cannot i repeat CANNOT run “off the grid”.

Secondly they may be “good old copper” but there is a big difference between “good old copper” and well “good old copper” the cable runs are not that long not long enough to have a large effect on the current that the panels generate. Do you understand the difference between series and parallel in an electrical circuit?

Now perhaps you can see why these rooftop systems are sold as ….. GRID CONNECTED.

It gives the impression that a rooftop system is actually supplying your home.

As I have mentioned (numerous times) the Batteries are the Killer (with respect to cost) in any rooftop system.

One 225W panel is I suppose a pretty ridiculous example.

A small (off grid) battery connected array, supplies power. Part of that power is converted to 240V/50Hz via the Inverter to operate the home during daylight hours, and part is ‘trickle charged’ for the battery bank. After hours, the battery bank supplies power to run the Inverter to supply the home.

The resistivity of copper wire is not significant, at any lengths used in a residential application, and losses would be so minimal as to be barely noticed.

With respect to losses in copper wiring, that gives an opportunity to explain how a humungous monster solar array in Central Australia, or filling The Great Australian Bight with wind towers and then sending the power ‘back East’ is something that would not work, due to those huge losses over distances like this.

Also, one of the most difficult things to impress upon people is that if a grid connected system generates the average daily power requirement, (20KWH) then it’s easy to explain to the purchaser that the system is supplying all the residences needs because (a)=(b). The point here is that the excess is sold back to the grid, so you are being paid for it, so you can’t have your cake and eat it too, and the grid is not your personal battery (storage device) where, after hours, you can call back that power you generated during the day that you did not consume, and sold back to the grid.

In that one panel UK example shown at the link, I would suggest there would be nothing fed back to the grid, and the only savings might be a (somewhat tiny) reduction in the power consumed from the grid, hence the savings would indeed be all but negligible.

I apologise for using a pretty ridiculous example and then further simplifying that.

Crakar24 – Government grants??? LMAO!!! I couldn’t get hooked up to the grid even though power lines ran right past my house. That’s why I ran solar, you dipshit. I know more than you will ever know about it.

there is a big difference between “good old copper” and well “good old copper”

That’s just bullshit. I know your type. You pay through the nose for “solar copper”, which is exactly the same copper, just with a bigger price tag. Dimwit.

You do understand the difference between fantasy and reality, don’t you?

I keep posting a post with links that disappears? In short Tony I thought DC was all the rage with off-grid types? You can certainly get DC fridges (that are apparently highly efficient) and also DC TVs. Heck ask anyone with a caravan if you can run a DC setup.

Tony, you may be a little liberal with your estimate of output; not a lot, but enough. Here in Texas, we can count on a lot of sunshine. Even so, barring a sun tracking system, the best the system will do is an effective 5 hours of sunshine per day — due to incident angles and atmospheric losses. So that 225W panel will provide more like 1.125kWh per day. At $.08/kWh, I figure that $450. panel will be paid for in maybe fifteen years.

But wait! There’s more. You won’t be able to run much off the panel directly. You need a bank of batteries to accumulate enough energy to supply heavier loads. Two small forklift batteries (1875Ah each) should do; only $8,000.

Now let’s not forget the synchrous inverter and auto trip switch to quick-disconnect from the grid should their power die. Another $800. to $1000.?

PV panels have come down some in price since I used a 100W back in the eighties. When all is said and done, direct solar is just too expensive to even consider for any but unique needs. Even then, a little Honda 2 or 3kW generator will just hum along for a fraction of the cost.

Solar (PV) systems are economically useful ONLY if you have no practical way to tie to the grid, need a silent source of power and/or cannot easily get petrol (and of course barring government subsidies).

One must consider latitude and local weather as a potential impediment to solar PV. Clouds and fog don’t help nor do shallow angles of sun declination.

Batteries are required if you plan to have any useful solar power away from the grid. One need not have expensive batteries, automotive types will work just fine in a small system.

DC equipment can be found, automotive parts can be salvaged and adapted too. Inverters are optional, rather inefficient but still have applications.

DC (especially low voltage) is quite susceptible to resistance losses (voltage drop) but I agree that “special copper” is marketing hype at its best. Much better money spent on larger gauge wire than any “special copper”. Better too is planning your system such that batteries are wired close to the PV panels and more important that the inverter is close to batteries. The higher AC voltage is much less prone to resistance losses.

Motor, heating or inductive loads are not a good match for solar PV systems. Spend some time trying to avoid them. Lighting, charging portable batteries and communications needs are all good uses of solar electric power.

Finally, government subsidized domestic systems, sited where grid power is readily available is nothing but folly. Shear unmitigated FOLLY.

First, I didn’t know that those things were bitches and moans. Now I know what those words mean. Second, not many of those are regarding ad homs, some are mean clarifications. Third my comment to you was not about ad homs.

Fourth, and this is where you have slipped up,”Your name aptly describes your comment”, is not an ad hom. I was saying that his/her comment was like that of someone who is a quack. I called him/her nothing. Finally, you might check Quack’s other comments. He/she is a troll.

Cyanobacteria are considered to be among the first life forms on Earth. Today’s cyanobacteria are practically identical to the originals. They have survived every major extinction event including the Permian extinction that killed 90 percent of the species at that time.

And when did they exist 2.8 BILLION years ago “virtually” unchanged today.

you are both funny but umm where do you get 10 million years for species age from? While you are at it, what is your definition of species (just checking in case the definition is non-standard and explains your 10 million year estimate).

Thanks for asking a random leaf on a blog for proof of something. Like most people I wont run around providing a long dissertation of scientific literature that is freely available to elsewhere, even if you ask nicely. Go find out for yourself.

The geological record indicates that ancestors of modern coral reef ecosystems were formed at least 240 million years ago. The coral reefs existing today began growing as early as 50 million years ago.

Scleractinia, also called stony corals, ..first appeared in the Middle Triassic and descended from the tabulate and rugose corals that barely survived the end of the Permian.
Much of the framework of modern coral reefs is formed by scleractinians.

There have been various types of reef builders since the early Cambrian, but the current types appear to have evolved in the Pliocene.

The actual age of any species seems of little interest, in that they have survived rapid temperature changes in the last 1.5 million years, including “world temperatures” at least 3 ℃ higher than today.

The question is important as I suspect that whatever answer I give, you will reject as you wont agree that what I am talking about is a species, or can be proved to be a species. If I know what you accept to be a species then I can target an answer rather than just pasting hundred of papers and book chapters in the hope that one of them is acceptable to you.

He asked for proof that corals have been around for around 500 million years. You will find them remarkably the same as today (they are). I have personally dug up 65 million year old gastropods and other critters which also are exactly the same as today.

Backslider… I suspect that you have no evidence that the things living 65 millions of years ago are EXACTLY the same as those living today. Seriously, if you do let me know and I can help you out with publication. So can you tell me again your definition of a species?

As pointed out many times before the world 65 million years ago was quite different to today. Corals don’t have bulky genomes full of active but dormant genes ready to be deployed no matter what the environment, so how did the exactly the same species survive all those changes?

Modern (sclaractinian) corals are seen in the fossil records since the middle Triassic period. CO2 levels were about 1700ppm at that time or 6 to 7 times pre-industrial CO2. That would have been about 225 million years ago or so.

❝ A paper, (using the latest NOAA sea level budget), published in the Journal of Coastal Research finds that sea level rise around mainland Australia decelerated from 1940 to 2000.

The Australasian region has four very long, continuous tide gauge records, at Fremantle (1897), Auckland (1903), Fort Denison (1914), and Newcastle (1925), which are invaluable for considering whether there is evidence that the rise in mean sea level is accelerating over the longer term at these locations in line with various global average sea level time-series reconstructions.

These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in mean sea level over time.

The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. ❞
.

Of interest also is the comment and link to Nat.Geo at foot:

Comment: I dare anyone after having looked at this representation of earth’s gravity to tell me that it’s possible to measure the GLOBAL sealevel changes in millimeters at any given time.

“Down in the Southern Ocean, very little is known about the cold-water corals that live there,” said Rhian Waller , a co-principal investigator on a project to study the spatial and temporal diversity, distribution and propagation of coral species in the frigid seas between continents.

Yes it is MattB, a thread about Labor slipping in the polls, typically when a party “slips” in the polls it means they are facing a loss at the next election especially when the election is looming (well 7 months may not be looming) but surely even you can grasp this concept if not then i stand by my original comment about your lack of intellectual capabilities (For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge-cluelessness)

Once again, the major take-out lesson from this is how poor the science is, once the warming alarmists are allowed to control it.

Our marine researchers are holding a line that isn’t dictated by science, and their reputations are at stake. The older ones only have to hold on until they get to pensionable age, but the younger ones need to plan for their mid and late careers. There must be a lot of backside covering long-tern research going on about now, that can be flashed as sceptical credentials for when the dam bursts.

Sea surface temperatures vary a great deal. These variations are the basis of the La Nina and El Nino events. Warm water pushed to the coast of Australia gives it more rain and when it is pushed to S. America we have drier weather with cooler water at or near the surface. The water at greater depths does not seem to vary. The corals have adapted to temperature changes of any sort. It is wrong to see an adaptation as a terrible thing. I thought adaptation was a principle of evolution and ecology, not stagnation.

But unfortunately the MONEY goes to the CAGW crowd screaming that bleaching is a result of 0.5 C temperature increase over nearly 100 years. What Tim said above also is so correct and can be acted on.

But then we get dills like Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who is the Director of the Global Change Institute at UQ rabbiting on its getting hotter and the GBR is dying. Here he is justifing his grant money on the new CAGW site. He also complains the everybody is picking on him. Gosh! Wasn’t he the twit that wanted to put shadecloth over the whole reef?

this needs to be a litmus test of how serious the Coalition is about the CAGW scam:

5 Feb: Age: Tom Arup: Climate fund dismisses Coalition call to halt funding
The head of Australia’s $10 billion clean energy finance corporation says the body could begin signing contracts as early as April, rejecting calls from the Coalition to freeze transactions ahead of this year’s election.
The corporation’s chief executive Oliver Yates told Fairfax Media the corporation (CEFC) can begin making commitments to renewable energy and energy efficiency projects at any time, and begin funding them after July 1.
”We can sign agreements before July, and just fund them after July,” Mr Yates said…
In a letter sent to the corporation’s board on Monday, the Coalition’s finance spokesman Andrew Robb and climate action spokesman Greg Hunt said the opposition did not support the corporation and asked it to desist from entering into contracts or releasing funds now that September 14 had been declared the date of the next federal election.
The letter said if it wins office the Coalition would not allocate funds to or accept agreements struck by the corporation after 1 July because it believed the country would ”effectively be a caretaker period”.
”Any rush of taxpayers’ funds via the CEFC so close to an election would be totally inappropriate in our view and would be interpreted as a political exercise aimed at influencing an election outcome,” the letter says.
While not speaking directly to the Coalition’s letter, Mr Yates said the law was clear that until legislation governing the clean energy finance corporation was changed the corporation had an obligation to undertake its business by making investment decisions and loans.
At a press conference in Canberra on Tuesday new Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus rejected the opposition’s claim the country would be in caretaker mode. He said the caretaker period would start on August 12 when parliament is dissolved ahead of the September 14 poll.
The Greens also hit out at the Coalition’s letter, with leader Christine Milne saying the party would seek to block any attempts by the Coalition to disband the clean energy corporation…
The opposition has opposed the establishment of the clean energy finance corporation since its inception, with Mr Robb telling Fairfax Media in November 2011 that it would become ”a honeypot to every white-shoe salesman imaginable”…http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/climate-fund-dismisses-coalition-call-to-halt-funding-20130205-2dw0k.html

Those corals in the Persian/Arabian Gulf must be tolerant to hyper-salinity as the common salinities in that part of the world are around 40 ppt (parts per thousand)whereas “normal” seawater is around 35 ppt, so maybe CO2 is not as important as temperature and salinity?…

1 Feb: Bloomberg: Why Canada Oil-Sands Industry Wants CO2 Tax Harper Hates: Energy
By Jeremy van Loon & Andrew Mayeda
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has vilified political opponents who support a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions. The oil-sands industry, Canada’s fastest growing CO2 polluter, says he’s out of step…
Oil companies operating in Canada such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), Total SA (FP) of France and Canada’s Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) plan to convert billions of barrels of the sticky bitumen into diesel and gasoline. Under foreign and domestic pressure, they now see a greenhouse-gas levy helping to provide access to markets and more predictable costs for Canada’s biggest export industry, which shipped C$68 billion ($68 billion) of oil in 2011.
A carbon tax “is one of the ways to promote better performance of the industry,” Andre Goffart, president of Total’s Canadian unit, said in an interview in Calgary…
“A carbon tax maximizes the use of markets and minimizes complexity,” Pius Rolheiser, an Imperial Oil Ltd. (IMO) spokesman, said in a phone interview. “On that basis, a carbon tax is a better approach.” Imperial, Canada’s second-largest oil producer by market value, is 70 percent-owned by Exxon…
“The intuition behind carbon pricing is straightforward: we should tax things that we do not want, and making it more expensive will reduce pollution,” Marc Lee, senior economist at the Ottawa-based Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in Vancouver, said in a Jan. 13 report…
“What business hates is a lack of clarity,” Stephenson, who helps manage C$2.7 billion at First Asset Investment Management Inc., said by phone. “Even a bad tax would be better than discussions that are endless.”…http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/why-canada-oil-sands-industry-wants-co2-tax-harper-hates-energy.html

Clearly, even with the drop in value of carbon permits, the oil companies see a fixed tax rate as the cheaper solution for what they feel is a foregone conclusion (they know they can manipulate how much it will be).

Most of these companies are also involved in “green energy”, so the handouts they get for that will offset any taxes.

4 Feb: Bloomberg: Changing the Conversation on Climate Change
by Rohit T. Aggarwala, Edited by Mary Duenwald
(Rohit T. Aggarwala leads the environmental program at Bloomberg Philanthropies and is a visiting scholar at Stanford University. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To be successful this time around, the White House needs to change this impression. It can do so with a couple of counterintuitive moves — and environmentalists need to help.
First, it has to make clear that regulation isn’t the ideal approach — it’s just the only one available…http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-03/changing-the-conversation-on-climate-change.html

5 Feb: Bloomberg: Jim Snyder: Chu’s Parting Words: Success Requires Failure
Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced his resignation today in a 3,800-word, bullet-pointed “Dear Colleague” letter. Posted on the agency’s Web-site, it runs six pages when printed…
“In the scientific world, people are judged by the content of their ideas,” Chu wrote.
In places, the letter reads like a response to one of Chu’s and the department’s biggest stumbles: the half-billion dollar loan to Solyndra, a solar panel maker that went bankrupt two years later…
The U.S. should continue to aim high, he encouraged. The letter ends with a passionate appeal to address the challenges of a warming planet.
“Ultimately we have a moral responsibility to the most innocent victims of adverse climate change,” Chu wrote. “Those who suffer the most are the people who are the most innocent: the world’s poorest citizens and those yet to be born.”…
Policymakers, Chu said, should be judged “by the content of our decisions.”http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-04/chu-s-parting-words-success-requires-failure.html

“Ultimately we have a moral responsibility to the most innocent victims of adverse climate change,” Chu wrote. “Those who suffer the most are the people who are the most innocent: the world’s poorest citizens and those yet to be born.”

Just who is Chu?… do you know? He had nothing to do with AGW policy???

this is ridiculous. do i detect a hint that Exxon might have been one those involved the biofuel scam:

1 Feb: Bloomberg: Scam-Ridden U.S. Biofuel Program Targeted for Fix by EPA
By Mark Drajem & Mario Parker
The EPA yesterday called for a mandate of 16.55 billion gallons for renewable fuels such as ethanol for this year, up 8.9 percent from 2012 and in line with a target set by Congress…
The agency also issued rules aimed at preventing scams, after the EPA determined that three separate companies sold fraudulent Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs, for fuel they never produced…
***A 2007 federal law requires that refiners such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) blend certain amounts of renewable fuels with gasoline each year, with the amount determined by their share of the fuel market. Instead of producing the fuels themselves, refiners can buy credits, or RINs, from other producers to fulfill their obligations.
Under the proposal issued yesterday, purchasers of the renewable-fuel credits would have them verified through third- party audits…
Refiners also have complained about the use of Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane to meet the advanced biofuel mandate. Brazilian imports of the fuel have skyrocketed as domestic producers, which use corn, wrestle with higher costs caused by drought in the Midwest…http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-31/epa-seeks-to-increase-renewable-fuel-mandate-by-8-9-for-2013.html

He is in Adelaide for his tour and has a good interview with Alex jones.
He has some very unkind words for Gillard and some great praise for Abbott!
He also talks about the climate, the situation the farmers are facing, the corrupt bureaucracy, etc, etc. . .
Starts at 2:35:50 (where Ive set the link to start from.

But this was posted there just a couple of hours ago by Ed Tenberge (I found it funny):

THE CAPTAIN’S PICK
(from a contributor so cannot attest to accuracy)
“Nova Peris”
*was not a member of the ALP
*has lived in Canberra for 15 years
*previously stated that she would like to get into politics in the NT (hoping someone would ask her) but both major parties ignored her
*did not know who the father of her first daughter was
*married the bloke who drew the short straw
*was known as greased lightning, but not for her sporting prowess
*was evicted by Cathy Freeman for trashing the house she had generously loaned her
*was picked up drunk in Darwin mall, having a punch-up with her then husband
*didn’t turn up for a celebrity race the next day as she had a black eye.
*was very unsportsmanlike towards team mates in the Kuala Lumpur Commonwealth Games
*posed for a nude calendar
*sponsors Telstra and Novotel withdrew their sponsorships
*took fellow hockey team members on a fishing trip to Bathurst Island (Charters, exclusive lodge accommodation) and charged it to the NT Government
*great expectations of living off the public purse.

Hey Climate Change, hope you had a good day. Just wanted to let you know where I’m at right now… To be honest, I’m not really ready for anything serious. I think you’re great but don’t want to waste your time because it’s really just not a good time for me. Hope you understand.

I spent a number of years building jetties around the atolls in the north of PNG & the Solomons. I became pretty familiar with coral in quite warm shallow water, within a few hundred miles of the equator.

I spent even more years siting a reef facility & carting tourists out to it from the Whitsunday Islands, & mainland.

I So familiar with the stuff, I got to know some of that coral by christian name. Would you believe it was the same stuff?

I see Gee Aye aint thick…you just like making flying comments much as I do…fair play mate. Mine are a bit longer though so you ,ay have trouble digesting the verbiage:

Reminds me of the time a soldier went forward to the trenches to deliver a message to Colonel Munro (dont recall his actual rank and no,this isnt from personal memory). He asked where Munro was, adding “He’s Saki you know”. The other Tommy was taken aback: “I always thought he was sraightforward”.

QLD has again been affected by large floods. Again, even with Federal government aid, any destroyed infrastructure such as roads and bridges will be rebuilt to the same standard as they were. They will not be raised roads or bridges. Of course, to do that would be more costly.

But, if the Federal government really believes its climate experts then one would think that some money would be spent on prevention of future floods including the much forecast increased rain events.

If, on the other hand they only spend enough to restore infrastructure to ‘normal’ levels then one could assume the government does not believe in their own propaganda about climate change.